LH2 Absorber Program and Plans Mary Anne Cummings MUTAC Review FNAL Jan 14, 2003

Mucool LH2 Absorber Collaboration E. Almasri, E.Black, K. Cassel D. M. Kaplan, A. Obabko, N. Solomey Illinois Institute of Technology S. Ishimoto, K. Yoshimura KEK L. Bandura, M. A. Cummings, A. Dyshkant, D. Hedin, D. Kubik Northern Illinois University Z. Conway, D. Errede, M. Haney University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign M. Reep, D. Summers University of Mississippi Y. Kuno Osaka University G. Barr, W. Lau, S. Wang Oxford University C. Darve, C. Johnstone*, A. Martinez, B. Norris, L. Pei, M. Popovic, S. Geer FNAL * also research faculty at IIT

Topics 1.R&D Motivation 2.Windows (absorber and vacuum) 3.Absorber manifold designs and flow tests 4.System integration 5.Near term plans 6.Summary

Cooling channel requires minimum “heating”  Low Z material  maximize radiation length LH2  Minimize window thickness/Z while retaining structural integrity  Nonstandard window design Absorber Heat Management  Refrigeration: W heat deposition from beam (~8W/cm)  Temperature and density stability: LH2 circulation  Novel flow and convection schemes Mucool LH2 Absorber Issues Safety  No H2/O2 contact: containment, ventilation, controls  No ignition sources: instrumentation must be “safe”, RF cavities “benign”  Confined operation, large B fields: system integrity and stability Approx. eq. for emittance:

Thin Windows Design Tapered thickness near window edges can further reduce the minimum window thickness near beam: Progression of window profiles: Absorber (1) and Vacuum (2 & 3)

Window manufacture (U of Miss) Backplane for window pressure tests Flange/window unit machined from aluminum piece (torispherical 30 cm diam) Backplane with connections, and with window attached

Measuring the “thinnest” thickness 1.Two different radii of curvature 2.Possibly not concentric Modified torispherical design If not at the center, where?

Non-standard thin window design:  No closed form expression for maximum stress vs. volume pressure  FEA (finite element analysis): geometry stress material strain volume pressure displacement Windows tests } Procedure (for manufacture quality control and safety performance) Three innovations:  Precision measurement of window: photogrammetric volume measurements  FEA predictions: inelastic deformation, 3 – dim included in calcs.  Performance measurement: photogrammetric space point measurement Progress towards meeting FNAL Safety Guidelines  Absorber and vacuum window guidelines understood  Absorber window test completed  FEA/data agreement established

Photogrammetry 1.Contact vs. non-contact measurements (projected light dots) 2.“Several” vs. ~ thousand point measurements (using parallax) 3.Serial vs. parallel measurements (processor inside camera) 4.Larger vs. smaller equipment 5.Better fit to spherical cap.  Photogrammetry is the choice for shape and pressure measurements

Photogrammetric measurements Strain gages ~ 20 “points” Photogrammetry ~1000 points CMM ~ 30 “points”

Window shape measurement Whisker = z(measured)-z(design)* *Given the design radius of curvature of the concave and convex surfaces, z(design) was calculated for the (x,y) position of each target Concave Convex CMM data points D. Kubik, J. Greenwood

Photogrammetry resolution (shape) convexconcave convex concave d R r Alignment of sides D’ Small triangle fit Use spherical fit of small triangles D =  m +- ( 5.5  m) + (- ~10  m)

Overpressure Window Test  Safety review requires overpressure and destructive tests of thin windows.  Tests to confirm Finite Element Analysis predictions for window performance.

Rupture tests Leaking appeared at 31 psi..outright rupture at 44 psi! 130  window “350”  window “340”  window Burst at ~ 120 psi 4. Burst at ~ 152 psi Cryo test

Absorber window test results Window # Test temp. FEA resultsTest results Minimum window thickness (mm) Rupture pressure (psi) Window thickness from CMM (mm) Measured rupture pressure (psi) 1293K K K K *152 Discrepancies between photogrammetry and FEA predictions are < 5%  Performance measurement (photogrammetry) 1. Room temp test: pressurize to burst ~ 4 X MAWP (25 psi) 2. Cryo test: a) pressure to below elastic limit to confirm consistency with FEA results b) pressure to burst (cryo temp – LN2) ~ 5 X MAWP from ASME: UG 101 II.C.3.b.(i)

Vacuum Windows FNAL Requirements: 1.Burst test 5 vacuum windows at room temp. to demonstrate a burst pressure of at least 75 psid for all samples. (pressure exerted on interior side of vacuum volume). 2.Non-destructive tests at room temperature: a.External pressure to 25 psid to demonstrate no failures: no creeping, yielding, elastic collapse/buckling or rupture b.Other absorber vacuum jacket testing to ensure its integrity Internal pressure: burst at 83 psi No buckling at 1 st yield (34 psi) Vacuum “bellows” window (34 cm diam):

LH2 Window R & D Immediate future: Manufacture and test of 21 cm “bellows” absorber window Manufacture and test of 34 cm vacuum window – internal and external pressurization *new test* New aluminum alloy (stronger) Optimize seals to manifold Stability test in the Lab G magnet **

Internal heat exchange: Convection is driven by heater and particle beam.Heat exchange via helium tubes near absorber wall. Flow is intrinsically transverse. Convection absorber design Output from 2-dim Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) calcs. (K. Cassel, IIT). Lines indicate greatest flow near beam center. KEK prototype, S. Ishimoto

Force-flow Absorber Mucool ~ W (E. Black, IIT) Large and variable beam width => large scale turbulence Establish transverse turbulent flow with nozzles External heat exchange: Mucool design: E158 design:

LH2 Manifold R & D 1.The driving physics issue in Mucool LH2 R & D is now fluid flow and heat removal 2.Two separate absorber designs 3.Flow simulations 4.Flow tests 5.Instrumentation

LH2 flow issues… Our Challenge: Large heat deposition and beam path is through entire volume absorber! 1. Liquid must move everywhere 2. Need gauge of temperature and density uniformity Questions: What computations are helpful? Are realistic flow simulations realizable? What tests will be useful, and how quantitative can they be? What level of instrumentation will convince us of sufficient temperature uniformity?

Force flow simulations 3 dimensional FE simulations are possible but CPU intensive (W. Lau, S. Wang) 3-dim and 2-dim flow simulations are consistent – use 2 dim for design and iteration. Preliminary results indicate that “bellows” window has better flow pattern in window volume.

Convection flow simulations Heating Coil Liquid Hydrogen 3-d grid: Lau/Wang FE 3-d flow simulation of KEK LH2 absorber: K. Cassel CFD:

Flow Tests Testing 3-dimensional simulations with water flow test at NIU Schlieren testing of convection flow (water) test at ANL (more quantitative program to run in 2003) J. Norem, L. Bandura

Infrared flow test setup E. Black

MTA LH2 Experiment Lab G magnet RF cells LH2 Cryostat

Mucool Test Area LH2 Setup Lab G magnet

MTA Force Flow Cryo System Red - Hydrogen Blue – Helium Based on E158 LH2 target system

LH2 Pump assembly (B. Norris et al):  Pump torque transition,  Motor outer shield,  Cooling system,  Pumping system of the outer shield,  Relief valves piping. More Cryo system pictures

Absorber/vacuum windows manufacture and test Fluid flow/convection simulations Instrumentation and data acq. development Flow tests: Forced Flow, Convection Safety Review MTA test design finalization MICE design Japanese absorber pre-MTA LH2 run Absorber/Solenoid Tests 2004 MTA LH2 absorber staging Mucool 2003/2004

Summary Comments On LH2 R & D 1.We have an established window design/manufacture/certification program, for absorber and vacuum windows, completed tests on the first window prototype, and have made many technical improvements on design. 2.We have developed new applications for photogrammetry (NIM article(s) and master’s degree in progress!) 3.Several projects have developed from LH2 absorber concerns, ideal for university and student participation. 4.MICE participation has advanced the Mucool program: the two flow designs are complementary; integration problems are being solved – possible hybrid for a real cooling channel likely. 5.The above four points means that we have survived as a program the delay of the FNAL MTF construction – but this year’s construction is critical! (KEK in “prestage” LH2 tests could help) 6.LH2 flow and heat conduction has now become the dominant physics concern for the absorber. The two flow designs will be pursued in parallel. 7.LH2 safety is the dominant engineering concern for the cooling cell, but there has not yet been any show-stopping problems.